[Mark Pearce]

Just more BS, Melvyn.  As usual you won't answer direct questions and you hide from specifics.  I don't claim to be an expert on any aspect of GCA.  I do have an interest, though, and as with most other things in life, am willing to express an opinion.  When I express an opinion, however, I do try to base it on things I know or have actual experience of.

It's clear that, on this thread as on so many others, you are expressing an opinion of modern courses without having even seen, let alone played them.  I don't care how much of GB & I you have seen, or how much you know about OTM and his contemporaries.  That doesn't, in my book, qualify you to offer an opinion on courses you haven't seen or played based on your own private prejudices against anything modern.

As to your professed aimn to improve what you see as wrong.  Frankly you won't get past go if you can't be bothered to see these modern courses to understand if what you think is wrong really is.  Your posts damage your cause more than they help it.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark

All the BS is yours. Your argument is so full of it, but then that’s perhaps because you do not understand GCA, who knows.

Just for the record how many designers have walked a course without playing and made comments not to mention alternations to the course. Let’s be very clear that is without playing a round.

I feel that through history, that you seem not to care much about (yet which your own occupation is so reliant upon – case histories taking priority) there are many references to this happening.

For the record I took a tour around Scotland and the North of England in 2007, 2008 (twice), and North Scotland in 2010 at Moray then East through to Castle Stuart and beyond in 2010. As for the Castle Course, I thought my opinion on that course was well known. It’s rather simple I do not play courses I do not like and to know if you like them or not you need to see the F@*k”#g things first. Well that’s what I believe one should try and do as I do not want to waste money on Green Fees apparently a Scottish thing I believe).   

As I mentioned before you do not know me or have bother to try to understand me.

I am not going to continue any further, it is way off OT.  No no second Golden Age IMHO

Melvyn

[Mark Pearce]

Melvyn,

Spoken like the internet troll you really are.

I asked which of these courses you had played or seen.  Nowehere did I say you could not have an opinion without playing a course.  But, as we know from past experience, reading other people's posts isn't a strength of yours, is it?  The answer to the question that you refused to answer (either bacause you didn't want to admit it was the answer or, giving you the benefit of the doubt, because you had failed to read the question properly, appears to be that you may (or may not, your post is notably ambiguous) have seen Castle Stuart.  Everyone knows your opinion on the Castle Course, I know, but we don't know if you have actually seen the course (unlikely, I guess, as you state you can't walk a course and surely you wouldn't ride a buggy, even if not actually playing).

As to the older courses I mentioned (chosen deliberately for the artificiality of much of the architecture), I note with interest your refusal to state whether you have ever played or seen them (even before your recent disability struck).

Probably a good idea if you do as you say and don't continue further on this thread, as you appear to have little of value to add.

[Niall C]

David

Can you outline for me what you think the characteristics were of this second golden age ie. what made it a golden age of design other than an awful lot of golf courses got built ?

Certainly there was a huge increase in golf course development in the UK during this period but I assume your question to be was any of it any good and did it have similar value, design wise, to what was going on elsewhere, correct ?

Of the Scottish examples given eg. Kingbarns, Castle Stuart, Renaissance, Dundonald, Crail (Craighead), Carrick, The Castle, The Dukes (St Andrews), St Andrews Bay (x2) and Machrihanish Dunes, the first 3 courses were not only designed by Americans but were conceived by Americans, the 4th and 5th were designed by Americans, the 6th by a Canadian, the 7th and 10th by a Brit (? Paul Kimber), the 8th by an Australian (and subsequently modified by an American) and the 9th partially at least by a New Zealander (Scott MacPherson). That seems to suggest that either their is very little design talent in this country or perhaps it just hasn't had the chance to do it on home soil.

As an aside I have played all of the above bar the two Kimber courses and while they range from average (Craighead) to very good (Renaissance/Kingsbarns) none represents a "breakthrough" in golf course design IMO other than perhaps Kingsbarns for its creation of a landscape and Castle Stuart with its ultra wide fairways which again IMO are a detriment to the design.

Niall 

[Ally Mcintosh]

David

Can you outline for me what you think the characteristics were of this second golden age ie. what made it a golden age of design other than an awful lot of golf courses got built ?

Certainly there was a huge increase in golf course development in the UK during this period but I assume your question to be was any of it any good and did it have similar value, design wise, to what was going on elsewhere, correct ?

Of the Scottish examples given eg. Kingbarns, Castle Stuart, Renaissance, Dundonald, Crail (Craighead), Carrick, The Castle, The Dukes (St Andrews), St Andrews Bay (x2) and Machrihanish Dunes, the first 3 courses were not only designed by Americans but were conceived by Americans, the 4th and 5th were designed by Americans, the 6th by a Canadian, the 7th and 10th by a Brit (? Paul Kimber), the 8th by an Australian (and subsequently modified by an American) and the 9th partially at least by a New Zealander (Scott MacPherson). That seems to suggest that either their is very little design talent in this country or perhaps it just hasn't had the chance to do it on home soil.

As an aside I have played all of the above bar the two Kimber courses and while they range from average (Craighead) to very good (Renaissance/Kingsbarns) none represents a "breakthrough" in golf course design IMO other than perhaps Kingsbarns for its creation of a landscape and Castle Stuart with its ultra wide fairways which again IMO are a detriment to the design.

Niall 

What we have to bear in mind though is most all of the above courses were built on vastly inferior sites (soil and topo-wise) to the majority of the acknowleged great courses that have been built in the last 15 years in the States and Australia....

That said, I do agree with the premise that we are currently in a second golden age... Although the quantity has dropped, I hope the quality continues to rise... I believe it will...

[Jim Hoak]

So much of the US golf course development during that period of time was done as part of a housing project.  I know there are exceptions--Bandon, Whistling Straits, etc.--but the comment still stands.  I have the impression that that phenomenon did not take place as much outside the US (again with exceptions).  Since I believe that so much of the housing/golf course construction was poor that may not affect the general comment of good construction in the Second Golden Age.  But it is a factor to consider.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Niall makes a powerful point. Most of these high end courses were designed by non-natives. Were our native designers incapable of such work? Had they made such a hash of things in the past that they could not be considered? Or is there a belief over here that we are still the inferior golfing power, incapable of winning majors or Ryder Cups?

I think the real truth is that very few people in British golf know anything about golf course architecture. Ask most club golfers who designed their course. They won't have a clue. Quite probably the club doesn't know. It's only when a centenary book comes to be written that the matter is raised, and probably there are no surviving documents to assist research. I've been involved in a number of these books and it is astonishing that general or green committee minutes rarely record the outcome of some possible architectural change. They knew what had been done and did not see fit to record the facts. We have a lot of education to do to sell golf course architecture to the British.

Let me add that when I was involved in the Alwoodley Centenary book, despite the wonderful evangelism of Nick Leefe, MacKenzie and his course were, to most members, far less important than the club. Fortunately my editor, David Crabtree, was soon convinced of the potential of marketing the MacKenzie prototype that he readily agreed that we should lead off with the course and leave all those bureaucratic elements such as land acquisition, clubhouse re-buildings and the fate of the sewage cart to later chapters. Other clubs were less easily persuaded, if at all. One quite upmarket country club wanted nothing about the course or its designer. It wasn't thought important....

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I believe the availability of goof sites has ben limited in the UK.
Designers I think tend to be limited to converted farm land to build the courses.
Looking at The Belfry, The Oxfordshire as examples, the terrain to work with and simply the surroundings views make the building of a Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes for example hard to compare against.
The similar land sites in the UK are more protected enviromentaly or simply no longer exist.

Coast lines are well spoken for with other properties more profiatble than golf courses, hill lands too remote to build"destination" second clubs for members...besides which UK golfers in general are very tight and would not join second clubs anyway!!!

The likes of Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns are positive exam[ples of courses built in the sme time span as been discussed here and appear to have recived good reviews.

Another reason may simply be wealth and the "new" wealth that was behind many of the more illustioys projects built on the US in this time span......dot com wealth or simply wealth during the golden eighties, the equivalent wealth in the UK would rather build in the sunnier climates and get away from the UK..

[Mark Pearce]

Not only designed by non-natives but developed by them, too.  It can hardly be a surprise that US based developers should choose architects they were familiar with, particularly when the courses developed in the previous decades in the UK were, generally, so very poor.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Mark, Niall - I dont think its a case of there is no UK talent. I think it is a case that the bigger projects got their funding via the banks and institutions that largely demanded 'names'. A lot of the larger projects have derived from Americano money so they want American names. A lot of projects see an attached name as the quick way to sell a home or a top membership. A lot of the UK architects build courses in the zero to £1.5 range, a lot of name designers might be that much. I know I am capable of producing very detailed work, but I am used to working with small budgets, you also need a great team around you. I suspect many other UK architects get dealt the same cards, there are not many great parcels of land left anymore, the recent great ones left are often in marginal locations and may struggle financially. Strangely in the last 10 years most UK archies have been working overseas rather than here, it has not been very active here since 2000, the real zoom period was probably 1990 -2000 a lot got built in that spell, there were a lot of courses to fill the demand for golf near urban areas rather than the luxury stuff. Some of the upper end stuff might not have been great but there were still some good uns that in time might prove to be great uns.

[J Sadowsky]

I wonder whether some of the perceived lack of high quality new golf courses was due to a lack of demand for new high quality golf courses in Great Britain due to more access to very high end golf architecture in the first place.  Great Britain already has a number of very architecturally-interesting courses, and those courses are also less exclusive, as a whole, than the very top end American designs.

I also wonder how much of the difference is due to having a somewhat lower Gini coefficient than the US (i.e., having a smaller class of the very wealthy, which would mean both less demand for high-priced golf, and less "angels" to build them).

Likewise, I wonder whether the comparative cost of land plays a factor.

Finally, I assume that differences in environmental regulation play a role.  I do not think you'll find a single answer, and that assumes the underlying presumption is correct.

Just throwing out ideas.

[David Kelly]

I have the impression that that phenomenon did not take place as much outside the US (again with exceptions). 

With the exception of the insanity that went on in Ireland.

[Mark Pearce]

Adrian,

I didn't mean to imply there wasn't talent here, certainly not now.  But British architects in the 70s, 80s and early 90s didn't hace a great record.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Justin - There were plenty of high quality golf courses built but you must remember this forum represents the minor head. What we tend to appreciate on this site in golf course architecture does not often reflect in making money. The newer courses are on heavier soils, plenty of water, lots of bunkering, parkland, well groomed and perhaps have spa's, hotels and fine cuisine and conferencing.
The key point to remember is the high demand for golf is around the cities, not in the highlands, you need numbers and catchment, if you are on coastline your 30 minute circle goes into the sea and the problem with that is "fish dont play golf". The whole mix of great land versus demand has just run out. Probably the best route to make a good/great course inland is with water and theres no doubt that water and trees in many minds is far far better than some of the the stuff we tend to like on this forum.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,

I didn't mean to imply there wasn't talent here, certainly not now.  But British architects in the 70s, 80s and early 90s didn't hace a great record.

Mark I agree you have to look at the facts and from 1950 through to 1980 there was not much produced that you could rave about. The Belfry was probably the best! I think there have been a fair few since the 80s that are a bit better. The course pre 1990 were often very clinical, following a pattern of greenside bunker left, greenside bunker right, similar on the fairways. There was a lot of reliance on tree planting and a 25 year scheme where today I think we tend to look at more instant features.

[Melvyn Morrow]

The question was  “Why did the second Golden Age (1995-2010) miss out Great Britain”

Problem is defining the term Golden Age, does that equate in the form of making money or good GCA.

Either way, I still do not see a Golden Age unless that is simply regarded as volume i.e. design and building a large number of courses. If that is the case then we should talk Numbers and not Golden.
What has marked out this age, what has given it the right to be called Golden? Yes some good course have been built, but have been overshadowed by many poorer ones, so it must be our standard that we rate things that must have dropped.

No, I see no Golden Age, nothing that would warrant that period be it worldwide or within one continent being credited with this title. In fact we have seen a decline in the game with side issues that threated our great existing courses both good and bad.

Yet many are happy to try to prop up an era that in truth has not really distinguished itself.

But of course, having not played all the courses in the world, my point of view is irrelevant, but then I am not aware of anyone who has played all the courses in the world. Oh yes I do know one guy Ernie Payne who has played all the course in Scotland. Then come to think of it that was never the question, for had it been then the Title of this post would have been “Having played all the courses in the world why did the second Golden Age (1995-2010) miss out Great Britain”.

No, Golden it certainly was not.

Melvyn

[Scott Warren]

Put down the hash pipe, Melvyn.

David: is all this as simple really as the fact Bill Coore hasn't worked in GB and the only Renaissance Design course on the island is the one I am told Tom Doak was the least involved in of the courses his firm built in that timeframe (immediately following Barny, Kidnappers and St AB)?

There are many new British courses that fill in a strong middle that would compete with the new Aussie courses not built by Coore and Doak.

As for ODG restorations, golf is a cheap game in Britain. Unlike the US, even if there were the appreciation for the architect and support for a restoration, in many case I'd suggest such a thing would be unaffordable.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of restoration happening in Australia, either.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

So what makes this period Golden?

Was it Architects looking for work or the credit crunch?
Was it the need to extend our exist courses due to not facing the facts early enough
Was it technology outperforming the designs

Hash pipe, wow now that is Golden coming from you.

Melvyn

[David_Elvins]

There doesn't seem to be a lot of restoration happening in Australia, either.

I think i wrote restoration/renovation.

I don't think the Australian golfing public has cottonned on to the fact that there has been some really really good renovation projects over the last ten years.  

The complete renovation of The Lakes and Lake Karrinyup are really really good.  Royal Sydney, Royal Queensland, The Grange West ,  Peninsula (North and South), have had complete,  or almost complete, redesigns that are significant improvements.  Mt Lawley, Port Fairy, Portsea, Glenelg, Barwon Heads, Torquay, Bonnie Doon and Grange East , are other courses that have or will be improved.  Will wait and see about Kooyonga and Yarra Yarra    Not all these clubs have a heap of money.  I am sure there are many comparable clubs in GB.  

[David_Elvins]

No, Golden it certainly was not.
Melvyn

melvyn,

take the time to visit courses listed on the Top Post Modern Course thread, before declaring that there was no Golden age.  Most of the courses listed on that thread are magnificent examples of golf as it was meant to be played. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

A small hand full of great courses does not make a Golden Age, otherwise we will be having one every few years. I do not dispute, never have that good and great course have been made, but again that does not define the period as Golden.

We use these words too often, reducing the quality of their real meaning, but Age, Golden Age no not enough Gold to define it Golden IHMO

Melvyn

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Do you think those Irish courses you list are better than, worse than or about the same as (in quality) the UK courses listed in this thread?

Mark

I couldn't say as I haven't seen enough of them - I don't really target new courses.  But I think Enniscrone is terrific and should be seen as one of the premier courses in Ireland. Donegal a shockingly good design given nobody talks about it.  Carne is very good and while I think it could have been better, the budget was very tight so there can be little room to complain.  TEC is the one course I have seen in Ireland which I believe missed the boat.  I think a much better course should have been built on that site.  It may be the same story as Carne and done with less money than ideal, but Carne to me takes far more risks and gets it right much of the time.

I will be playing St Andrews Castle in a few months.  I would like to see Kingsbarns, but won't pay the green fee.  Renaissance looks special, but it isn't likely I will see course anytime soon.  By the sounds of it it may be best to holf off and see if the new holes are ever built.  All that said, among the new courses in Scotland the one which interests me most is Dundonald.  

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

Scott - as I've said before 17 Old at Walton Heath has been returned to it's original design of bunker left and bunker right.

The massive growth in the UK in the 80s and 90s was for reasonably priced pay and play golf which doesn't tend to produce much in the way of great design. Most of the really interesting land in England is either developed or protected, hence high end investment in the middle of nowhere (Scotland!).

[Michael Dugger]

Adjusted for size and population, are you sure GB & I didn't also have a renaissance of gca as well?

Haven't I also heard that it's very difficult to get permitted in GB & I, and that it takes longer to get a course built than it does in America?

Lastly, while I know the economic meltdown is somewhat global, nobody threw more money around between 2000-2008 than the U.S.

This doesn't explain uber natural courses built on shoestring budgets, but it does address the state of development in 'Merica.

Oh, and Melvyn, you are a total douche.

[Scott Warren]

David E:

You're correct about that large amount of quality renovation work in Australia - but how much of that good work was necessitated by ill-advised changes in the preceding 15-30 years?

Mark C:

Scott - as I've said before 17 Old at Walton Heath has been returned to it's original design of bunker left and bunker right.

I understand that, but IMO the fact remains the hole as it is now is a far lesser hole than it was in 2009 with the "moat" bunker along the front. That hole was challenging, memorable and unique. Not all "renovations" improve a hole or course simply by being faithful to the original work. Sometimes changes are for the best.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()